Low demand delays nuclear plant 5 years

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Alberta Energy-Only Electricity Market faces capacity market debate, AESO price cap review, and coal-to-gas shifts by TransAlta and Capital Power, balancing reliability with volatility as investment signals evolve across Alberta's grid.

Key Points

An energy market paying generators only for electricity sold, with AESO oversight and a price cap guiding new capacity.

✅ AESO reviewing $999 per MW-h wholesale price cap.

✅ UCP retained energy-only; capacity market plan cancelled.

✅ TransAlta and Capital Power shift to coal-to-gas.

The Kenney government’s decision to cancel the redesign of Alberta’s electricity system to a capacity market won’t side-track two of the province’s largest power generators from converting coal-fired facilities to burn natural gas as part of Alberta’s shift from coal to cleaner energy overall.

But other changes could be coming to the province’s existing energy-only electricity market — including the alteration of the $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) wholesale price cap in Alberta.

The heads of TransAlta Corp. and Capital Power Corp. are proceeding with strategies to convert existing coal-fired power generating facilities to use natural gas in the coming years.

Calgary-based TransAlta first announced in 2017 that it would make the switch, as the NDP government was in the midst of overhauling the electricity sector and wind generation began to outpace coal in the province.

At the time, the Notley government planned to phase out coal-fired power by 2030, even as Alberta moved to retire coal by 2023 in practice, and shift Alberta into an electricity capacity market in 2021.

Such a move, made on the recommendation of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), was intended to reduce price volatility and ensure system reliability.

Under the energy-only market, generators receive payments for electricity produced and sold into the grid. In a capacity market, generators are also paid for having power available on demand, regardless of how often they sell energy into the provincial grid.

The UCP government decided last month to ditch plans for a capacity market after consulting with the sector, saying it would be better for consumers.

On a conference call, TransAlta CEO Dawn Farrell said the company will convert coal-fired generating plants to burn gas, although it may alter the mix between simple conversions and switching to so-called “hybrid” plants.

(A hybrid conversion is a larger and more-expensive switch, as it includes installing a new gas turbine and heat-recovery steam generator, but it creates a highly efficient combined cycle unit.)

“Our view is fundamentally that carbon will be priced over the next 20 years no matter what,” she said Friday.

“We cannot get off coal fast enough in this company, and gas right now in Alberta is extremely inexpensive…

“So our coal-to-gas strategy is completely predicated on our belief that it’s not smart to be in carbon-intensive fuels for the future.”

Elsewhere in Canada, the Stop the Shock campaign has advocated for reviving coal power, underscoring ongoing policy debates.

The company said it’s planning the coal-to-gas conversion and re-powering of some or all of the units at its Keephills and Sundance facilities to gas-fired generation sometime between 2020 and 2023.

Similarly, Capital Power CEO Brian Vaasjo said the Edmonton-based company is moving ahead with a project that will allow it to burn both coal and natural gas at its Genesee generating station, even as Ontario’s energy minister sought to explore a halt to natural gas generation elsewhere.

In June, the company announced it would spend an estimated $50 million between 2019 and 2021 to allow it to use gas at the facility.

“What we’re doing is going to be dual fuel, so we will be able to operate 100 per cent natural gas or 100 per cent coal and everything in between,” Vaasjo said in an interview.

“You can expect to see we will be burning coal in the winter when natural gas prices are high, and we will be burning natural gas in summer when gas prices are real low.”

The transition comes as the government’s decision to stick with the energy-only market has been welcomed by players in the industry, and as Alberta's electricity future increasingly leans on wind resources.

A study by electricity consultancy EDC Associates found the capacity market would result in consumers paying an extra $1.4 billion in direct costs in 2021-22, as it required more generation to come online earlier than expected.

These additional costs would have accumulated to $10 billion by 2030, said EDC chief executive Duane-Reid Carlson.

For Capital Power, the decision to stick with the current system makes the province more investable in the future. Vaasjo said there was great uncertainty about the transition to a capacity market, and the possibility of rules shifting further.

Officials with Enmax Corp. said the city-owned utility would not have invested in future generation under the proposed capacity market.

“There is no short-term need (today) for new generation, so we’re just looking at the market and saying, ‘OK, as it evolves, we will see what happens,’” said Enmax vice-president Tim Boston.

Sticking with the energy-only market doesn’t mean Alberta will keep the existing rules.

In a July 25 letter, Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage directed AESO chair Will Bridge to examine if changes to the existing market are needed and report back by July 2020.

AESO, which manages the power grid, has been asked to investigate whether the current price cap of $999 per megawatt-hour (MW-h) should be changed.

The price ceiling hasn’t been altered since the energy-only market was implemented by the Klein government about two decades ago.

While allowing prices to go higher would increase volatility, reflecting lessons from Europe’s power crisis about scarcity pricing, during periods of rising demand and limited supply, it would send a signal to generators when investment in new generation is required, said Kent Fellows, a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

“Keeping the price (cap) too low could end up costing us more in the long run,” he said.

In a 2016 report, AESO said the province examined raising the price cap to $5,000 per MW-h, but “determined that it was unlikely to be successful in attracting investment due to increased price volatility.”

However, the amount of future generation that will be required in Alberta has been scaled back by the province.

In the United States, the Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) allows wholesale power prices in the state to climb to a cap of $9,000 per megawatt hours as demand rises — as it did Tuesday in the midst of a heat wave, according to Bloomberg.

Jim Wachowich, legal counsel for the Consumers’ Coalition of Alberta, said while few players are exposed to spot electricity prices, he has yet to be convinced raising the cap would be good for Albertans.

“Someone has to show me the evidence, and I suspect that’s what the minister has asked the AESO to do,” he said.

Generators say they believe some tinkering is needed to the energy-only market to ensure new generation is built when it’s required.

“The No. 1 change that the government has to … think about is in pricing,” added Farrell.

“If you don’t have enough of a price signal in an energy-only market to attract new capital, you won’t get new capital — and you’ll run up against the wall.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Alberta Utility Rate Rider will add a modest fee to electricity bills and natural gas charges as the AUC recovers outstanding debt from the COVID-19 deferral program via AESO and the Balancing Pool.

Key Points

A temporary surcharge on Alberta power and gas bills to recover unpaid COVID-19 deferral debt, administered by the AUC.

✅ Applies per kWh and per GJ based on consumption

✅ Recovers unpaid balances from 2020-21 bill deferrals

✅ Collected via AESO and the Balancing Pool under AUC oversight

The province says Alberta ratepayers should expect to see an extra fee on their utility bills in the coming months.

That fee is meant to recover the outstanding debt owed to gas and electricity providers resulting from last year's three-month utility deferral program offered to struggling Albertans during the pandemic.

The provincial government announced the utility deferral program in March 2020 then formalized it with legislation, alongside a consumer price cap on power bills that shaped later policy decisions.

The program allowed residential, farm and small commercial customers who used less than 250,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year — or consumed less than 2,500 gigajoules per year — to postpone their bills amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the province, 350,000 customers, or approximately 13 per cent of the natural gas and electricity consumer base, took advantage of the program.

Customers had a year to repay providers what they owed. That deadline ended June 18, 2021.

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which regulates the utilities sector and natural gas and electricity markets and oversees a rate of last resort framework, said the vast majority of consumers have squared up.

But for those who didn't, provincial legislation dictates that Alberta ratepayers must cover any unpaid debt. The legislation exempts Medicine Hat utility customers for electricity and gas co-operative customers for gas.

"When the program was announced, it was very clear that it was a deferral program and that the monies would need to be paid back," said Geoff Scotton, a spokesperson with the Alberta Utilities Commission.

"Now we're in the situation where the providers, in good faith, who enabled those payment deferrals, need to be made whole. That's really the goal here."

Amount to be determined
Margeaux Maron, a spokesperson for Associate Minister of Natural Gas and Electricity Dale Nally, said based on early estimates, $13 to $16 million of $92 million in deferred payments remain outstanding.

As a result, the province expects the average Albertan will end up paying, unlike jurisdictions offering a lump-sum credit, a fraction of a dollar extra per monthly gas and electricity bill over a handful of months.

Scotton said at this point, there are too many unknown factors to know the exact size of the rate rider. However, he said he expects it to be modest.

Scotton said affected parties first have until the end of this week to notify the AUC exactly how much they are still owed.

Those parties include the Alberta Electric System Operator and the Balancing Pool, who essentially acted as bankers with respect to the distribution and transmission of the utilities to customers who deferred their payments.

Regulated service providers may also seek reimbursement on administrative and carrying costs, even as issues like a BC Hydro fund surplus spark debate elsewhere.

Then, Scotton said, once the outstanding amounts are known, the AUC will hold a public proceeding, similar to a Nova Scotia rate case, to determine the amount and the duration of the rate rider to be applied to each natural gas and electricity bill.

The amount will be based on consumption: per kilowatt hour for electricity and per gigajoule for natural gas.

That means larger businesses will end up paying more than the average Albertan.

Scotton said the AUC will expedite the hearing process and it expects to have a decision by the end of the summer.

Rate rider a 'surprise'
Joel MacDonald with Energyrates.ca — an organization which compares energy rates across the country — said it's not the amount of the rate rider that bothers him, but the fact that the repayment process wasn't made clear at the onset of the program.

"It came to us as a bit of a surprise," MacDonald said.

He said what was sold as a deferral program seems more like an electricity rebate program, or an "ability to pay" program.

"As opposed to the retailers looking into collection methods, anything that wasn't paid is basically just being forced upon all Alberta consumers," MacDonald said.

The expectation set out in the deferral legislation and regulations state utility providers such as Enmax and Epcor are expected to use reasonable efforts to try to collect the unpaid balances. It must then detail those reasonable efforts to the AUC.

A spokesperson for Enmax said it first works with its customers to find manageable payment arrangements and connects them with support services if they are unable to pay.

Then, if payment can't be arranged, it said it will work with a collection agency, which may even result in disconnection of service.

The spokesperson said only after all efforts have failed would Enmax seek reimbursement through this program.

Use tax revenues?
MacDonald also questioned why a government program isn't being paid for through general tax revenues.

He compared the utility deferral program to a mortgage subsidy program.

"Imagine that [Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation] said, 'Hey, we had to give mortgage deferrals and some of these people never paid back their deferrals, so we're going to add an extra $300 to everyone's mortgage,'" he said.

"You'd expect that to come off of some sort of general taxation — not being assigned to other people's mortgages, right?"

In response, Maron said due to the current fiscal challenges facing the government — and the expected minimal costs to consumers, and even as a consumer price cap on electricity remains in place — it was determined that a rate rider would be an appropriate mechanism to repay bad debt associated with the program.

Scotton said rate riders aren't unusual — they're used to fine-tune rates for a set period of time.

He said under normal circumstances, regulated service providers can apply to the AUC to impose a rate rider to recover unexpected costs. And in some instances, they can provide a credit.

But in this situation, he said the debt is aggregated and, in turn, being collected more broadly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EPA Telework Policy restricts remote work, balancing work-from-home guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic with flexible schedules, union contracts, OMB guidance, and federal workforce rules, impacting managers, SES staff, and non-bargaining employees nationwide.

Key Points

A directive limiting many EPA staff to two telework days weekly, with pandemic exceptions and flexible schedules.

✅ Limits telework to two days per week for many employees

✅ Allows flexible schedules, including maxiflex, during emergencies

✅ Aligns with OMB, OPM, CDC guidance; honors union agreements

EPA has moved forward on a new policy that would restrict telework even as agency leadership has encouraged staff to work from home during the coronavirus outbreak.

The new EPA order obtained by E&E News would require employees to report to the office at least three days every week.

"Full-time employees are expected to report to the official worksite and duty station a minimum of three (3) days per week," says the order, dated as approved on Feb. 27. It went into effect March 15 — that night, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler authorized telework for the entire agency due to the pandemic.

The order focuses on EPA employees' work schedules and gives them new flexibilities that could come in handy during a public health emergency like the COVID-19 virus, when parts of the power sector consider on-site staffing to ensure continuity.

It also stipulates a deep reduction in EPA employees' capability to work remotely, leaving them with two days of telework per week. An agency order on telework, issued in January 2016, said staff could telework full time.

"The EPA supports the use of telework," said that order. "Regular telework may range from one day per pay period up to full time."

An EPA spokeswoman said the new order doesn't change the agency's guidance to staff to work from home during the pandemic.

"The health and safety of our employees is our top priority, and that is why we have requested that all employees telework, even as residential electricity use increases with more people at home, until at least April 3. There is no provision in the work schedules policy, telework policy or collective bargaining agreement that limits this request," said the spokeswoman.

"While EPA did implement the national work schedule policy effective 3/15/2020, it was implemented in order to provide increased work schedule flexibilities for non-bargaining unit employees who were not previously afforded flexible schedules, including maxiflex," she added.

"The implementation of the policy does not currently impact telework opportunities for EPA employees, and EPA has strongly encouraged all staff to telework," she said.

Still, the new order has caused consternation among EPA employees.

One EPA manager described it as another move by the Trump administration to restrict telework across the government.

"Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, this policy seems particularly ill-timed and unwise. It doesn't even give the administration the chance to evaluate the situation once the COVID-19 pandemic passes," said the manager.

"I think this is a dramatic change in the flexibilities available to the EPA employees without any data to support such a drastic move," the manager said. "It has huge ramifications for employees, many of whom commute over an hour each way to the office, increasing air pollution in the process."

Another EPA staffer said, "I honestly think such an order, given current circumstances, would elicit little more than a scoff and a smirk."

The person added, "How tone-deaf and heavy-handed can one administration be?"

Inside EPA first reported on the new order. E&E News obtained the memo independently.

The recently issued policy applies only to non-bargaining-unit employees, including "full-time and part-time" agency staff as well as "supervisors and managers in the competitive, excepted, Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, and Senior Executive Service positions."

In addition, the order covers "Public Health Service Officers, Schedule C, Administratively Determined employees and non-EPA employees serving on Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments to EPA."

Nevertheless, EPA employees covered under union contracts must adhere to those contracts if the policy runs counter to them.

"If provisions of this order conflict with the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the agreement must be applied," the order says.

EPA has taken a more restrictive approach with the agency's largest union, American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, which represents about 7,500 EPA employees. EPA imposed a contract on the council's bargaining unit employees last July that limited them to one day of telework per week, among other changes that triggered union protests.

EPA and AFGE have since relaunched contract negotiations, and how to handle telework is one of the issues under discussion. Both sides committed to complete those bargaining talks by April 15 and work with the Federal Service Impasses Panel if needed (Greenwire, Feb. 27).

Both sides of the telework debate
EPA's new order has been under consideration for some time.

E&E News obtained a draft version last year. The agency had circulated it for comment in July, noting the proposal "limits the number of days an employee may telework per week," among other changes (Greenwire, Sept. 12, 2019).

EPA, like other federal agencies under the Trump administration, has sought to reduce employees' telework. That effort, though, has run into the headwinds of a global pandemic, with a U.S. grid warning highlighting broader risks, leading agency leaders to reverse course and now encourage staff to work remotely in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Wheeler in an email last week told staff that he authorized telework for employees across the country. Federal worker unions had sought the opportunity for remote work on behalf of EPA employees, and the agency had already relaxed telework policies at various offices the prior week where the coronavirus had begun to take hold.

The EPA spokeswoman said the agency moved toward telework after guidance from other agencies.

"Consistent with [Office of Management and Budget], [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and [Office of Personnel Management] guidance, along with state and local directives, we have taken swift action in regions and at headquarters to implement telework for all employees. We continue to tell all employees to telework," said the spokeswoman.

Wheeler said in a later video message that his expectation was most EPA employees were working from home.

"I understand that this is a difficult and scary time for all of us," said the EPA administrator.

The coronavirus has become a real challenge for EPA, and utilities like BC Hydro Site C updates illustrate broader operational adjustments.

Agency staff have been exposed to the virus while some have tested positive, and nuclear plant workers have raised similar concerns, according to internal emails. That has led to employees self-quarantining while their colleagues worry they may next fall ill (Greenwire, March 20).

One employee said that since EPA's operations have been maintained with staff working from home, even as household electricity bills rise for many, it's harder for the Trump administration to justify restricting remote work.

"With the current climate, I think employees have shown we can keep the agency going with nearly 95% teleworking full time. It makes their argument hard to justify in light of things," said the EPA employee.

The Trump administration overall has pushed for more remote work by the federal workforce in the battle with the COVID-19 virus. The Office of Management and Budget issued guidance to agencies last week "to minimize face-to-face interactions" and "maximize telework across the nation."

Lawmakers have also pushed to expand telework for federal workers due to the virus.

Democratic senators sent a letter last week urging President Trump to issue an executive order directing agencies to use telework.

In addition, Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) introduced legislation that would allow federal employees to telework full time during the pandemic.

Some worry EPA's new order could further sour morale at the agency after the pandemic passes, as other utilities consider measures like unpaid days off to trim costs. Employees may leave if they can't work from home more.

"People will quit EPA over something like this. Maybe that's the goal," said the EPA manager.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Workforce Safety News

Duration Portfolio Energy Storage aligns layered peak demand with right-sized batteries, enabling peak shaving, gas peaker replacement, and solar-plus-storage synergy while improving grid flexibility, reliability, and T&D deferral through two- to four-hour battery durations.

Key Points

An approach that layers battery durations to match peaks, cut costs, replace peakers, and boost grid reliability.

✅ Layers 2- to 4-hour batteries by peak duration

✅ Enables solar-plus-storage and peak shaving

✅ Cuts T&D upgrades, emissions, and fuel costs

The debate over energy storage replacing gas-fired peakers has raged for years, but a new approach that shifts the terms of the argument could lead to an acceleration of storage deployments.

Rather than looking at peak demand as a single mountainous peak, some analysts now advocate a layered approach that allows energy storage to better match peak needs and complement ongoing efforts to improve solar and wind power across the grid.

"You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Some developers of solar-plus-storage projects, bolstered by cheap batteries, say they can already compete head-to-head with gas-fired peakers. "I can beat a gas peaker anywhere in the country today with a solar-plus-storage power plant," Tom Buttgenbach, president and CEO of developer 8minutenergy Renewables, recently told S&P Global.

Customers are very busy these days and rebate programs need to fit the speed of their life. Participation should be quick, easy, and accessible anywhere.

Others disagree. Storage is not disruptive for generation, but will be disruptive for transmission and distribution, Kris Zadlo, executive vice president and chief development officer at Invenergy, told the audience at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference last spring. Invenergy, like many renewable power developers, develops generation, energy storage and transmission projects.

But there is another path that avoids the pitfalls of positions on either end of the all-or-none approach. "Do the analysis of the need itself," Ray Hohenstein, market applications director at Fluence, told Utility Dive. If the need is only two hours in duration, it may be best served by a two-hour battery. "You don’t have to have batteries that run to infinity."

Storage vs. fossil fuel peakers

Energy storage has several benefits over traditional fossil fuel peaking plants, Hohenstein said. It is instantaneous, it has no emissions and requires no fuel, and has limited infrastructure needs. It can also help the grid absorb higher levels of renewable generation by soaking up excess output, such as solar power at noon, and many planned storage additions will be paired with solar in the next few years. But the one thing energy storage cannot do, he said, is provide limitless energy.

So, instead of looking at replacing an individual peaker, Hohenstein advocated a "duration portfolio" approach that uses energy storage to shave peak load.

If the need is for 150 MW of resources that will never need to run for more than two hours at a time, then a battery is "quite cheap," significantly less than a four or eight-hour battery, said Hohenstein. "If you fill up your peak by duration layer, it could be more cost effective."

NREL research driver

Fluence’s approach is informed by research by Paul Denholm and Robert Margolis at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), released last spring.

The NREL researchers looked at the California market where they said 11 GW of fossil fuel capacity is expected to be retired by 2029 because of new once-through-cooling requirements that are taking effect. A lot of that capacity is peaking capacity and, according to NREL’s analysis, a large fraction could be replaced with four-hour energy storage, assuming continued storage cost reductions and growth in solar installations.

The key in NREL’s research was the level of solar power penetration. There is a "synergistic" relationship between solar penetration and storage deployment, the researchers wrote, and other studies suggest wind and solar could meet 80% of U.S. demand as these trends continue.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News